On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 17:26 +0000, you wrote: > To clarify, is the concern w/ the amount of non-automatable tasks or > with the model of requiring authors to “ping” some middle-man in order > for updates to their plugin to become visible to all CBAN users?
Both actually. Putting us into the path introduces delay and requires somebody making time available. This is already not working well for the current plugin repository, where things stall because we would like to provide feedback and help guide the author along, but then don't have the cycles for actually doing that. The delay/effort will be shorter/less the more tasks can be automated, but at the beginning we won't have much automation in place I imagine and even long-term certain stuff could never be automated. So I'm wondering if we really need to be in the path at all, seems that can only cause friction that would be better to avoid in particular as we kick things off. > Because most what I had outlined could be automated Yep, understood, my mail was not directly targetting your proposal; that just triggered me thinking about this again. My comments were meant more broadly, we've been discussing different notions of vetting over time with various subsets of people. > That would make life easier for authors, and that’s maybe even a > higher priority than maximizing the quality/consistency of user > experience because, without authors, there won’t be much for users to > experience in the first place. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm advocating: making it easy should really be priority number one, with everything else coming second. If you see ways to adapt the design to target that specifically, I'm all for it. Robin -- Robin Sommer * ICSI/LBNL * ro...@icir.org * www.icir.org/robin _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
